Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Fairclough
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Norman Fairclough
No assertion of notability, not a single reference, no third-party sources. Cheeser1 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Although the article is not in the best shape, the subject clearly meets WP:PROF. He is mentioned in almost every general sociolinguistic text book published in the UK in the last 10 years, as well as some media studies ones, e.g. this one pg 122 (to list all of these secondary sources would be superfluous). A Google search also brings up many results:, such as [1] The JPStalk to me 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Question: Where does WP:PROF say "mention in various textbooks" qualifies? Unless his work is the primary basis for a text, I don't see how that helps. There are no sources to substantiate any claim of notability, so this is still a dicey claim. There are (1) no sources asserting that he is an expert or (2) important or (5) that any of his work is a unique or notable concept. (3,4) His work is not cited as the primary basis for a textbook or anything of the sort. (6) He has not received any notable awards. --Cheeser1 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Mentions in various textbooks" satisfies #1 and #2 criteria. Meets all other criteria: esp. #5 as one of the founders of CDA. The JPStalk to me 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're stretching to meet 1 or 2, and as for 5, that depends on how much he figured into CDA, how relevant or notable CDA is, etc. And what's the only way we figure that out? Reliable third party sources. There appear to be no such sources, in this article or the one on CDA. The fact that you'd even say that me meets criteria 6 blows my mind: nowhere, at all, anywhere do I see it even asserted, without source, that he has received any notable award or distinction (emeritus = retired = not special). --Cheeser1 20:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You clearly don't know anything about the topic if you ask about the notability of CDA. How many individuals are consistently mention in textbooks in relation to the topic? The JPStalk to me 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you clearly don't understand that if this article was properly sourced to establish notability, I wouldn't have to have some pre-existing knowledge about the subject. In case you didn't notice, that's the point. If this person's notability is so obvious to an expert in the field, then it should be clear and verifiable to everyone else. Without third-party sources, it cannot be verifiable, and that's not my fault, since you're apparently the more informed one. --Cheeser1 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, my opening comment in this discussion related to that. And you will now see that there is a reliable source. You will also notice that there is now a reliable source. I presume similar sources in books not written by Fairclough will suffice, and will cause you to argue 'keep'? The JPStalk to me 07:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in participating in this discussion any more, because people here have clearly taken offense at my nominating this article, despite the fact that it fails WP:N due to lack of sources establishing notability. One random reference is still not enough (two are required just to minimally meet WP:N), and I'm still confused as to how/why people think (for example) that "emeritus professor" is somehow a ticket into Wikipedia. The fact that I'm following procedure, acting in good faith, and adhering to WP:N has gotten me nothing but pot-shots at my intentions and innuendo regarding my stupidity/ignorance on the subject, neither of which should be up for discussion. --Cheeser1 11:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, my opening comment in this discussion related to that. And you will now see that there is a reliable source. You will also notice that there is now a reliable source. I presume similar sources in books not written by Fairclough will suffice, and will cause you to argue 'keep'? The JPStalk to me 07:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you clearly don't understand that if this article was properly sourced to establish notability, I wouldn't have to have some pre-existing knowledge about the subject. In case you didn't notice, that's the point. If this person's notability is so obvious to an expert in the field, then it should be clear and verifiable to everyone else. Without third-party sources, it cannot be verifiable, and that's not my fault, since you're apparently the more informed one. --Cheeser1 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong speedy keep Is this a joke? (I note someone even tried to speedy this!) Everything checks out and this is an Emeritus Professor (as high as it's possibly to get in UK academia) with a list of publications as long as your arm. — iridescent 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll thank you to be civil and assume a little good faith. This article is totally unreferenced and, as I've explained, that if nothing else raises doubts about its notability. Being a published academic or a retired professor is not a part of the relevant notability guideline (which of course, requires third-party sources). --Cheeser1 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Honestly the speedy was out of line; "one of the founders of critical discourse analysis" is a clear claim of notability. The fact that he has five books with over 500 citations to them, and two with well over 1000, according to scholar.google.org, makes his notability pretty clear.--Prosfilaes 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Once again, I'll remind people to assume good faith. While that is a clear claim of notability, it is only a valid claim of notability if it is substantiated by a reliable third-party source. Please keep that in mind before accusing me of acting in bad faith or "out of line." --Cheeser1 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on taking a statement that your behavior was wrong as a lack of good faith? Your claim that it had to be substantiated is incorrect; WP:SPEEDY#A7 says "No indication of importance/significance ... This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." That is, a claim of notability invalidates a speedy delete request even if it's not citable. It never should have been speedied.--Prosfilaes 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and if this were a discussion about me and how much you dislike the fact that I AfD'd your favorite professor, my actions would be fair game. This is an AfD. Insinuating that I was either acting in bad faith or out of stupidity, whichever you prefer, is what's out of line. It has no bearing on this discussion. --Cheeser1 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you adhere to WP:AGF yourself? It starts looking like you have a beef with the subject of this AfD, not Prosfilaes --Crusio 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's continue to make this a discussion about the imaginary agenda you think I have to destroy the article. --Cheeser1 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cheeser1, I said "looks like". I just mean that the aggressive way you are commenting in this AfD is not very constructive, accusing other people of not having good faith, for example. I don't know Prosfilaes (this is the first time I see that editor's name), but your above comment on "your favorite professor" was uncalled for and not based on anything this editor said. If you would change your tone, you would argue your point much more effectively, this is counterproductive. Just my 2 cents. --Crusio 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I recall, I was the one who nominated this article for deletion in good faith, and was met with several rude comments insinuating that I was acting in bad faith or in some inappropriate fashion. Forgive me if that doesn't make me happy, but this is an AfD, not the place to discuss bizarre and unfounded speculation that I have some agenda (when there is clearly good reason to at least AfD this article, even if it winds up kept). --Cheeser1 11:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- All I was saying is that according to policy, a speedy tag on an article requires that there not be the smallest claim of notability. It does not require citations or anything that would make it survive an AfD. That doesn't mean you are stupid or in bad faith, it means you were wrong in trying to speedy the article.--Prosfilaes 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I recall, I was the one who nominated this article for deletion in good faith, and was met with several rude comments insinuating that I was acting in bad faith or in some inappropriate fashion. Forgive me if that doesn't make me happy, but this is an AfD, not the place to discuss bizarre and unfounded speculation that I have some agenda (when there is clearly good reason to at least AfD this article, even if it winds up kept). --Cheeser1 11:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cheeser1, I said "looks like". I just mean that the aggressive way you are commenting in this AfD is not very constructive, accusing other people of not having good faith, for example. I don't know Prosfilaes (this is the first time I see that editor's name), but your above comment on "your favorite professor" was uncalled for and not based on anything this editor said. If you would change your tone, you would argue your point much more effectively, this is counterproductive. Just my 2 cents. --Crusio 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's continue to make this a discussion about the imaginary agenda you think I have to destroy the article. --Cheeser1 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you adhere to WP:AGF yourself? It starts looking like you have a beef with the subject of this AfD, not Prosfilaes --Crusio 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and if this were a discussion about me and how much you dislike the fact that I AfD'd your favorite professor, my actions would be fair game. This is an AfD. Insinuating that I was either acting in bad faith or out of stupidity, whichever you prefer, is what's out of line. It has no bearing on this discussion. --Cheeser1 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on taking a statement that your behavior was wrong as a lack of good faith? Your claim that it had to be substantiated is incorrect; WP:SPEEDY#A7 says "No indication of importance/significance ... This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." That is, a claim of notability invalidates a speedy delete request even if it's not citable. It never should have been speedied.--Prosfilaes 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, I'll remind people to assume good faith. While that is a clear claim of notability, it is only a valid claim of notability if it is substantiated by a reliable third-party source. Please keep that in mind before accusing me of acting in bad faith or "out of line." --Cheeser1 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Linguistics is not directly my field, so I will abstain from voting. However, I do have a few comments. "Emeritus professor" is nothing special. One just needs to sit at one's desk until retirement.... The article at the very least needs cleanup. Several of the publications listed are nothing more than letters to the editor ("reply to", etc) and are obviously non-notable. --Crusio 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Remember, "Professor" has a different (and higher) meaning in the UK to the US - the highest academic rank, roughly equivalent to a named chair in the US, and the Emeritus Professor title is reserved for former full professors (aside from the University of Warwick with its non-standard titles) — iridescent 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know. I hail from The Netherlands which follows the UK system. Still, I know several UK professors/US named chairs/heads of departments that are not really notable, so I do not automatically assume notability just from the job title. Thanks for bringing UWarwick to my attention, I didn't know they have non-standard titles. Sounds interesting, I'll look into it. --Crusio 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Remember, "Professor" has a different (and higher) meaning in the UK to the US - the highest academic rank, roughly equivalent to a named chair in the US, and the Emeritus Professor title is reserved for former full professors (aside from the University of Warwick with its non-standard titles) — iridescent 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Prosfilaes. Several hundred citations (even in the notoriously unreliable Google Scholar) is pretty notable. --Crusio 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Full UK professor with two honorary degrees; his work is heavily cited (eg 2 books each with over a thousand citations per Google Scholar [2]) -- seems to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject appears to be rather notable; nomination may have been in mala fide. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
